MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015740709 · doi:10.1139/h01-026

Gender Differences in Temperature and Vascular Characteristics During Exercise Recovery

2001· article· en· W2015740709 on OpenAlexaff
I. Marchand, Dominique Johnson, David R. Montgomery, Guy R. Brisson, Hélène Perrault

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForearmMedicinePlethysmographRectal temperatureThermoregulationInternal medicineAnimal scienceCardiologySurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temperature and vascular responses during exercise recovery were examined in men and women of similar age and fitness status (VO2max: 76 +/- 5 vs 73 +/- 5 mL O2 / kg Fat Free Mass x min). Forearm blood flow (venous occlusion plethysmography; FBF), rectal (Trectal) and forearm skin (Tskin) temperatures (degree C) were measured before and every 15 min up to 105 min (t105) during recovery from a 45-min run at 75% of VO2max. Results indicate Trectal decreased to pre-exercise levels within 25 min in men but reached and remained at values lower than baseline between 60 and 105 min of recovery in women. From 90 to 105 min of recovery, Tskin was lower in women than men (t105 : 29.0 +/- 1.3 vs 30.7 +/- 1.5; p <.05). Recovery FBF (mL/100mL x min) was higher in men than women from the start (6.2 +/- 1.9 vs 4.9 +/- 1.9) to the end of recovery (t105 = 1.7 +/- 0.6 vs 2.6 +/- 1.1) (p <.05). Heat flux calculated at the forearm was higher in women and increased throughout the last hour of recovery (p <.05). Further investigations are needed to examine mechanisms underlying failure of post-exercise core and skin temperatures in women to stabilize at pre-exercise levels.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207